A federal judge Thursday afternoon indicated he was unlikely
to block San Francisco's public nudity ban from being implemented next month.

Late last year city lawmakers adopted an ordinance
prohibiting people from exposing their genitals, perineum, or anal region in
public. The rule would apply to sidewalks, parklets, streets, on Muni vehicles,
and inside transit stations; nudity is already prohibited in city parks and
along the waterfront.

A group of urban nudists sued to overturn the law, and have
asked the federal court for an injunction to prevent it from going into effect
February 1. Not only do they argue they have a right to be unclothed in public,
they also contend the new law violates their free speech rights.

The city argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that
being nude is not a protected form of speech and that it has the right to enact
laws regulating where people can disrobe in public. The new law, for instance,
carves out an exception for people to be nude at city permitted street fairs,
parades, and festivals.

"The Supreme Court has said nudity by itself is not
expressive," deputy city attorney Tara M. Steeley told the court.
"The ordinance is not targeted at expression."

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen, with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, appeared to agree with
the city's argument during the first court proceeding in the case. He spent
more than an hour questioning the attorneys representing the city and the
plaintiffs.

"This looks like classic time, place, and manner
restrictions. I don't see how this is based on someone's views or what somebody
is saying," said Chen.

San Francisco-based lawyer Christina A. DiEdoardo, who filed
the class action lawsuit on behalf of four nudists, questioned whether the city
does indeed have the power to enact the nudity ban under state law.

"I have not seen anything from the city that says we
have the right to enforce a dress code," said DiEdoardo.

She also disputed the city's contention that the nudity ban
is about protecting the public's health.

"This is not like passing a ban on smoking. No one I
know acquired cancer or any diseases from walking down Castro Street and running
into someone not wearing clothes," DiEdoardo said.

Chen did raise questions about the laws' lack of exemptions
for protected speech under the First Amendment, such as political
demonstrations, suggesting the nudity ban could come under judicial review once
it is implemented.

"The issue is to what extent protected speech is
implicated. Does the city agree certain forms of nudity is protected as
political speech?" asked Chen. "You would agree some kind of
political protest that includes nudity is entitled to some protection?"

Steeley conceded "there are situations where nudity can
be combined with another expressive event." But she countered that
"doesn't mean the First Amendment prevents the city from regulating
it."

The judge pressed Steeley on what would happen come February
1 if someone decides to become nude in front of City Hall to protest the
enactment of the ban.

"I can't speculate on future events. I can say the
prohibitions of the ordinance are clear," said Steeley.

Earlier DiEdoardo had told the judge that law enforcement's
reaction to people being naked in public had already been impacted by the Board
of Supervisors' passage of the nudity ban. She added that her clients planned
to continue to hold nude-ins in protest of the law come February and expect to
be prosecuted under it.

"It seems something has changed in the minds of law
enforcement since the ordinance passed," she said. "My clients are
certain if the injunction isn't granted, as soon as February 1 comes around
they will be cited."

Chen told the attorneys that he would issue his opinion on
the injunction request as well as the city's request that he dismiss the case
by the end of January.

After the hearing Steeley told reporters that she felt
confident that the judge would side with the city.

"There is nothing in the ordinance to prevent any
political speech at all. If it is on private property or inside, the ban doesn't
apply," said Steeley. "It simply regulates conduct. It doesn't
prevent anybody from being nude at a debate or at the Board of
Supervisors."

She added that the ordinance purposely did not include
exemptions for political speech.

"The plaintiffs argue that anyone nude anywhere is
engaging in political speech. Had there been an exemption for that it would
wipe out the rule," said Steeley.

At a pre-hearing rally attended by eight nudity supporters,
Oxane "Gypsy" Taub told reporters that the ban violates her rights.

"It limits my freedom of self expression and my freedom
of political expression," said Taub, one of the named plaintiffs in the
case.

She vowed that should the judge uphold the law, then
"we will find other means to defeat this ban."

DiEdoardo told reporters she was prepared to take the legal
challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but expressed confidence that
Chen would side with her clients.

"I am fairly confident we will win today," she
said.

The lawsuit is Mitch Hightower et al v. City and County
of San Francisco, Case No. C-12-5841.